BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 04:03 AM

You should know by now, Jim, that trying to provoke me to argue with you on such topics is a no-no. We both know where the other stands, & so far as I am concerned you are impermeable to reason on the matter and can persist in your mulish Islamist-loving ostrichicity without response from me. I am not Keith, who can never resist rising to your mindless maunderings. There is not going to be any equivalent Jim'n'Mike Show, so stop trying to get one going.

That is my last word to you on this topic.

Best regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 04:49 AM

I love no religion Mike, and your attempt to claim I do is beneath even you (unless you can actually produce evidence of having suppoorted any particular religion or superstition!
Your attitude to Muslims is basically no different to that of many Germans aimed at Jews in the 1930s, and some British people are now giving support to a political party which is attempting to turn that attitude into a reality by manipulating xenophobia such as yours.   
That worries me deeply - obviously not you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 05:45 AM

Isn't it funny when my posts get deleted except the post I put afterwards with a spelling correction...

Perhaps deleting posts about Islamaphobia being abhorrent is par for the course considering the moderators live in Dumbfuckistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 May 14 - 07:16 AM

"Islamophobia; a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons."

         Christopher Hitchens

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:17 AM

"Islamophobia; a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons."

"DEFINING "ISLAMOPHOBIA"
The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The term was coined in the context of Muslims in the UK in particular and Europe in general, and formulated based on the more common "xenophobia" framework.
The report pointed to prevailing attitudes that incorporate the following beliefs:

Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
Islam is a violent political ideology.
For the purposes of anchoring the current research and documentation project, we provide the following working definition:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve "civilizational rehab" of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:24 AM

Islamaphobia is alive and kicking without dead contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:27 AM

OK Jim. One more try.

If it's only religion you don't love, then WHY do you denounce all my animadversions against the evident effects of the teachings of Islam, as urged by its own adherents, and, in particular, many of their ministers of the faith, as 'racist'? You can't have it both ways. When young murderers defend themselves in the public courts, on the plea that their crime was "an act of war" -- the Holy War enjoined on them by their Prophet -- then how can you accuse me of 'racism' when I reject this explicitly religion-based defence, and denounce the effects of the teachings of the works they claim to be citing in their defence? The fact that your neighbour, that nice Mr Patel, might not agree with their plea is neither here or there [& I repeat that you don't know what he may have to say on the subject when speaking to his co-religionists -- he's not going to tell you, is he?]. And from such animadversions of mine, you make your great slide [which you excuse yourself with "Whoops! Just being rhetorical"] of saying that in doing so I have somehow implicitly complained of someone or other "coming over here to take our jobs". I won't let you forget that libellous attack, any more than you can bring yourself to forget what some others have said on certain matters. For shame, Jim!

Get your head together, Jim. Either they are a race, in which case your cries of "racism" might make some sense; or they are just a religion, which you therefore deny supporting, in which case I am perfectly entitled to express views as to the observable adverse effects of this religion's teachings on many of its adherents, and those with whom they may come into contact: whether as legal authorities flogging & stoning young Sudanese women of whose marriages they might disapprove, or yobbos hacking soldiers to death in the streets of London, or Pakistani mobs killing brides uninhibited by the surrounding police officers.

Can't have it both ways, Jim. Sorry. They are not a race, as you demonstrate you well know by your pathetic opening of your last post to me. And as they are not, I am perfectly entitled to express adverse opinions as to the deleterious effects of their teachings as a religion.

Got it? If not, then I think you had better go & reinsure with Confused.com.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:44 AM

In interests of accuracy, and before anyone can make a point of my inaccuracy against me: that young woman in Sudan has been sentenced to be flogged & hanged, not stoned ~~ when her newly born child is two years old: now there's humanity for you! But let me make the point which I might not have sufficiently stressed, that in all the three instances I cited of which she is one (& I could as you know have found many more, from Malysia, Yemen, N Nigeria), the perpetrators of these enormities, the murder in Woolwich, the stoning in Lahore, the sentence in Sudan, have explicitly called the teachings of their faith in defence and justification of their actions &/or judgments.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:51 AM

& Jim, by some sort of mental sleight or legerdemain which I can't even begin to follow, says that my saying so somehow makes me the equivalent of the Sturmabteilung in 1930s Berlin. Ain't he the charmer, just, to say such things to me, who lost I know not how many cousins to the Nazis?!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:16 AM

In case anyone should plead that, in worst-case scenario, these are just leftovers of now fading traditions, don't forget that the Sultan of Brunei has just, within the last month, enacted BRAND NEW laws mandating stoning to death for adultery: which doesn't, in Islam, it appears, necessarily mean adultery in fact, but any sort of extra-marital intercourse; or even just miscegenation -- back to the ongoing Sudan thing again, where the condemned woman was legally married, but to someone the judge decided was of another faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:21 AM

"any sort of extra-marital intercourse" ···

even having been raped can get you stoned to death for adultery, publicly, buried up to neck in a football stadium. See my entry above about the 13 yr-old- Somalian girl: 29 May, 0717 am.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:28 AM

Prague, May 27 (ČTK) — Islamic ideology rather than individual groups of religious fundamentalists is behind violent actions similar to the gun attack at the Jewish Museum in Brussels that killed four people, Czech President Miloš Zeman said Monday at the Israeli Embassy in Prague.

Two Israeli tourists and a member of the museum staff were killed by an unknown shooter Saturday, and another staff member died of his injuries Sunday.

Zeman's speech sharply condemning "the hideous attack" was posted on his official website today. Zeman took part in the celebration of the 66 years of independence of Israel.

"I will not be calmed down by statements that it is only small marginal groups. I believe, on the contrary, that this xenophobia and this racism or anti-Semitism stem from the very nature of the ideology on which these fanatical groups rely," Zeman said.

He said one of the sacred texts of Islam calls for the killing of Jews.

Zeman said he would also sharply criticize fanatics who planned to kill the Arabs.

"However, I have heard of no movement calling for the massive murder of Arabs, but I know about an anti-civilization movement that calls for the massive murdering of Jews," he said.

Prague Post

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 10:04 AM

"WHY do you denounce all my animadversions against the evident effects of the teachings of Islam
I have always placed all religious extremism down tho churches and fanatics.
I deplore the attitude of you and yours in being selective in your attacks on one group and ignoring - even to the extent of attempting to divert the discussion away from the root causes.
Those attacking Muslims for their beliefs and way of life are no different than those who attacked Jews for their beliefs and way of life.
"your cries of "racism" might make some sense" - stems from your pupil - who you have persistently and actively supported and excused, accusing one racial group of being perverts implanted by their culture - Islamism is not a race - "All male Pakistani" is - you described my criticism as being a misunderstanding on my part - making yourself part of his racism.
"who lost I know not how many cousins to the Nazis?!"
Which makes your position even more indefensible.
There is nothing more depressing than a member of one persecuted group persecuting and defending the persecution of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 10:37 AM

Boo Bad. Yeah, it''d be a first to be guests at the Israeli Embassy for your country and complain about the Zionist aim to rid "The Holy Land" of Arabs....

zzzzz

On an internet site in Afghanistan, a doddering old fool called Abdul, or AtheAM as he signs himself points out how Christian forces, first from The West 130 years ago, then Russia and more recently The West again spread terror around the country in the name of their Christianist aims, killing women and children, dropping bombs and getting their equivalents of mullahs to bless the rockets, whilst their soldiers praise their Lord.

Europe, America, Australasia, they all worship the same type of God etc etc etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:00 PM

Aaahhh -- poor old Jim. You can't help being sorry for him. Thinks he's so prettily priggishly pure of ❤ ; but that old antisemitic strain will keep bursting out -- all those old certainties of Wasp superiority to keep the lesser lots like the Yids in their appointed places. He doesn't mean it to; but it will just keep bursting out.

& the cream of the joke is ~~ he really is too thick to know what I'm on about.

I expect he'll say it's becoz I'm [his favourite word of abuse] EDUCATED, dontcha know? & coz I accuse them of coming over here to take our jobs. [I never have, but the libellous little louse forgets that bit!]


Aaaaahhhhh!

Poor old Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:21 PM

Back to the schoolyard Mike - doesn't it always happen when you run out of excuses.
Yah boo sucks to you too
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:37 PM

Sorry, Jim; but you are an antisemite. You think you're not but you are. I push you into an intellectual corner, like your dire & drastic constant confusion between race & religion for instance; and what pours out but the old refs to Nazis, and reminders about being a member of a "persecuted race"...? Well, how luvly to be a Wasp like you, so dashed superiah to us lesser breeds, wot wot...

When Dustin Hoffman went all Method & prepared for Marathon Man by running all round Central Park & staying awake for 36 hours, Laurence Olivier said "Have you thought of trying acting, dear boy?"

So, never mind the Nazis & the "persecuted races", Jim. Have you thought of trying arguing, dear boy?

All this constant recession to race & origin-throwing & reminders of the Nazis ~~ really a bit contemptible, you know. I'd afraid the yah·boo·sux are just a teeny dose of own medicine.

You think they're not, but they are...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:48 PM

"Jim; but you are an antisemite. "
The old get out - scramble behind the piles of dead to excuse your echoing the very thing that killed them.
Been there - done that - have long established that those who attribute crimes committed in the names of the Jewish people are the Antisemites.
Pathetic!!
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:52 PM

I recall a couple of years ago someone saying at a folk club I was at that Muslims can't stand the idea of music and want it banning. Councils will be telling shops to get rid of Muzak in case it offends yadda yadda.

A few nights later, at a Richard Thompson concert......
I
Incidentally, I'm just wiating for the taxi. Four couples meeting up for a drink and meal. One of the couples are Muslim so soft drinks and vegetarian for them as the pub doesn't do halal. Just another night in multicultural UK.

Meanwhile, idiots with placards saying Jesus this that and the other will be, as ever, picketing the out of town shopping mall a few miles away as they open on a Sunday.

I'd wear tin foil on my head as well if I were you Michael, just to cover all bogey men...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 14 - 07:25 PM

Sorry, Jim; but you are an antisemite. You think you're not but you are.

You come across generally as a respectable old duffer, but I take serious exception to this. I have not, in all the time I've managed to stick with Keith-Jim threads, detected one iota of antisemitism from Jim, and my antennae are constantly all a-bristle. This remark, unfortunately, marks you out as that thing I really hoped you weren't: a silly old fool. Get a grip, Michael. Preferably by taking a holiday from threads like this one. I know how to do that. Watch and learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:35 PM

Look at who's coming to the defense of the antisemite Carroll - that is rich, rich indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 12:45 AM

You mean well, Steve. But these antennæ of yours are not of the most sensitive. One of the most irritatingly insidious forms of antisemitism is throwing up their origins at Jews, telling them they should 'know better' then to do such-and-such or say so-&-so or have views on this'n'that, because of their ethnic history. It's something Jim does all the time. I gave some reasoned argument; asked some very specific questions. He declined to address or answer them; instead introducing the 1930s Nazis into the equation and reminding me I was a member of a 'persecuted race'; as if I was ever likely to forget. You're a well-meaning old thing yourself, Steve, in general. But, be well advised -- stay out of this one. It's an area I really do know a lot more about than you do, and you are liable just to make a rather unsavoury sort of fool of yourself.

Best regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:16 AM

I am perfectly well aware that I could just as easily have been born in 1932 in Warsaw as in London; in which case I should not be sitting here posting this. The consideration is a constant leitmotiv to my entire existence. It needs no patronising persons revelling in the security of their unshakeable Waspery to remind me of the fact, thank you.

A little empathy would not come amiss on occasion.

So, sorry: I say it again. Jim is an antisemite. He thinks he isn't but he is. I daresay he would rather not be; in which case he would do well to get his brain in gear before his fingers start automatically typing "Nazi" and "persecuted" and so on yet again.

And I say again: Islam is, for reasons I have rubricated countless times with no semblance of any rational response, but mere irrelevant abuse or facetiousness [I mean you, Musket], a Weltanschauung which needs constant vigilance on the part of the rest of the world [just look at responses to the ongoings in Sudan at this instant] if its potential for ubiquitous mischief is to be contained.

Which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

So how about some rational responses, please: without engagement of these factitious instamatic racism-spotters which snarl up so much of the baggage of so many of you?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:27 AM

Try folding the tin foil first. It makes it twice as thick and doubles the chances of preventing harmful rays from reaching your head Michael.

The transmitters are disguised in mosque minarettes so check to see how close you live to a mosque. Don't actually get within 600 yds of one though. You don't need to be quite so brave.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:33 AM

How you could have the gall to post that after my just preceding thread, Ian, is quite beyond me.

You contemptible little louse.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:36 AM

"One of the most irritatingly insidious forms of antisemitism is throwing up their origins at Jews"
And one of the most despicable defences of atrocities carried out by regimes claiming to act on behalf of the Jewish people is to point to the death toll of the Holocaust and say "If you critisise them you are an Antisemite".
Israel is now a persecutor of the Muslim people, stealing their land, slaughtering, starving, ghettoising and humiliating their people.
You have paid lip-service to being opposed to this while at the same time you have stayed silent on a massive massacre of refugees, you have ignored the chemical warfare, the Berlin-like wall, the attempts to starve an entire, largely impoverished people into submission, the attempted ethnic cleansing of a nomadic people, the Warsaw Ghetto like checkpoints, the destruction of homes, the bombing of hospitals and schools, children being used as human shields..... you have refused to even acknowledge statements by Israeli soldiers and security service officers.
Your 'opposition' to Israeli expansionist terrorism appears to amount to the cutting down of a few olive trees and six broken cameras - no more than mealy-mouthed lip - service.
When my mother-in-law-to-be (didn't happen) showed me her tattoo all those years ago and told me, "Never again - not to anybody" she left me with something that stuck with me for the rest of my life.
I first met her and her daughter through their activities in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement protests... I have no doubt where they would be today in connection with Israeli Anti-Apartheid protests. Certainly on the opposite side of Israel's Berlin Wall, to you, BooBoo, Keith the Moron - and all the other 'principled and honest human beings' now defending Israel's right to act exactly like the former persecutors of the Jewish people.
Don't you dare call me an Antisemite, you appalling cowardly, hypocrite.         
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:43 AM

Then stop being one. Till then I'll call you what I like, you pompous little prig.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:50 AM

The Times today.

"Across the globe, in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, Christians are being bullied, arrested, jailed, expelled and executed. Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times. Yet Western politicians until now have been reluctant to speak out in support of Christians in peril.

The savage treatment of Meriam Ibrahim, sentenced to hang because she refused to renounce her Christian faith, has highlighted the miserable plight of those living under the regime of President Omar al-Bashir. The president has stated that he wants a "purely Islamic society" and many Christians, some of them denied food aid....."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 04:12 AM

Neither dare they speak out for the Muslims in peril after it took the murder of a couple of thousand of them in order to deliver India a new President.

The rise of using Islam as a tool for murderous intent is wrong. Yet substitute the word religion for Islam and religious hypocrites start defending religion.

There again, western media work on the basis of a bloke in London having empathy with a bloke in Africa on the basis of praying to the same delusion whilst seeing another bloke in Africa as being inferior because his delusion is slightly different.

Seen through the eyes of the other delusion, the first delusion doesn't have the answers.

Rational people meanwhile are called everything from a pig to a dog for refusing to play the persecution game. People who are seen as Christian by others, not necessarily Christians. It is easy to denounce medieval atrocity as being an aspect of one delusion regardless whilst claiming a moral high ground for another.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 14 - 04:25 AM

"Till then I'll call you what I like, you pompous little prig."
Schoolyard names and no answers again Mike.
And I will continue to regard you as a despicable hypocrite until you and provide some and stop defending Israeli atrocities from behind your 'wall of the dead'
What a ***** team!!!
Islamic Society - Jewish State - both lead to ethnic cleansing in the hands of zealots and extremists - whence the difference?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 05:10 AM

"No answers" to what?

I am the one waiting for some answers to some questions I have asked. Can't find any questions you have asked that require any answers. If there are any, please repeat them. Meanwhile, here are mine again, to which some answers would be appreciated --

I ask yet again if anyone can point to any other contemporary faith which induces so perverse a concept of "honour" in any of its adherents, or whose followers, in so many jurisdictions where they have gained power, use its tenets to justify such excesses of governmental forensic "justice".

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 14 - 01:27 PM

You have been presented with a series of Israeli atrocities carried out in the name of the Jewish people - you have ignored them all.
You have made quite clear that you regard all criticism of Israel as Antisemitic
What have you asked that I haven't replied to?
I have always made a point of responding to all questions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 14 - 01:32 PM

Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times.

WHOSE calculations, FW - yours? Lets see the EVIDENCE for this preposterous claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 14 - 02:03 PM

CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION
"It's almost certainly not the case that Christians are the most "persecuted" religious group in proportion to their numbers. Rather, they suffer along with other minority groups from, to take the most obvious example, the increasing prominence and, in some countries, power of strains of Islam that are uncomfortable with the very notion of religious pluralism. So, to an equal or even greater extent, are Muslims belonging to minority sects, such as the Shia in Saudi Arabia or the Ahmadi in Pakistan. Persecution against the Ahmadis, a sect not regarded by some orthodox as Muslim at all, has spread even to Britain, where recently a local newspaper in Luton was prevailed upon to apologise for the "hurt feelings" of Muslims after it carried an advertisement from the Ahmadi community.
If Christians are persecuted in many parts of the world, so are Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists and Jews. If Christians are persecutors in other (or sometimes the same) parts of the world: as are Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists and Jews. The fact that such a list of persecutors can include Buddhists, probably the faith least renowned for its zeal or intolerance, is a strong indication that by and large we are dealing with group rivalries, hatred of minorities, political struggles and only rarely a persecution based in the specifics of Christian theology."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 14 - 07:35 PM

Look at who's coming to the defense of the antisemite Carroll - that is rich, rich indeed!

Attempted smear noted. But, more important than that, you show yourself to be a minnow. Prove that I'm what you imply I am, you scurrilous little shitbag. And, while you're at it, you unreconstructed extreme right-wing shitferbrains, consider whether, just for once in your useless little life, you might actually make a post that actually has some serious content. High on snide, vacuous on substance, that's you through and through. Can't think why I've never said it before. You haven't got one single fair-minded idea in what passes for your brain. There are plenty of you around, unfortunately. Go on, prove that I'm what you imply I am. Alternatively, let's all have a bloody good laugh at your next pointless one-liner. Scum.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 14 - 07:49 PM

You mean well, Steve.

No I don't, and I don't need a pompous, right-wing arsehole like you to patronise me, thanks.   

You're a well-meaning old thing yourself, Steve, in general.

You just said that. Have you forgotten? Are you in a home yet? Twat.

But, be well advised -- stay out of this one. It's an area I really do know a lot more about than you do, and you are liable just to make a rather unsavoury sort of fool of yourself.

I need "advice" from a gobshite like you like I need a second arsehole. And never assume that, from your extremely limited transactions with me, you know more than me about anything on the planet. That is dangerous ground, dear fellow, for you to tread, as a number of people on this forum have already gleaned. I could go for your jugular ever more, but you're very old and I really don't need to be upsetting you. Best that you just sod off, leave me 'n' Jim alone (we bite hard, and you're frail) and get on with your arch-Tory, Islamophobe dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:19 AM

WHOSE calculations, FW - yours? Lets see the EVIDENCE for this preposterous claim.

Not mine Greg. That was a quote from yesterday's Times.
Here are a few more people who make the "preposterous claim" (taken from Jim's link)
"In a rare theological intervention at a Downing Street reception yesterday, David Cameron made the eye-catching suggestion that Christians were the most persecuted religious group in the world today.
The PM is not the first prominent figure to make such a claim. Pope Benedict XVI said it during his New Year message in 2011, Angela Merkel made similar remarks during a visit to a church in November 2012, and late last year Prince Charles spoke of "intimidation, false accusation and organised persecution to the Christian communities in the Middle East at the present time."

Tragic news reports seem to bear this out. The destruction of ancient Christian communities in their homelands in Iraq, Syria and other parts of the Middle East, described by Tom Holland as "a crime against civilisation as well as against humanity", has been one of the most depressing consequences of the recent turmoil. Sometimes, direct religious persecution seems to be involved, as in this week's murder of Dutch priest Frans van der Lugt in the besieged town of Homs. Meanwhile, in Pakistan yet another absurd blasphemy prosecution came to light, this time of a Christian couple sentenced to death (and a fine!) for allegedly sending text messages deemed to be offensive to Islam.

And let's not forget North Korea, officially the worst country in the world to be a Christian, where a few weeks ago 33 Baptist missionaries are said to have been sentenced to death on the personal orders of Kim Jong-Un.

The persecution of Christians has been the subject of some recent books. The US Catholic journalist John Allen entitled his The Global War on Christians, maintaining that Christians as a whole were "indisputably ... the most persecuted religious body on the planet". Writing in the Spectator, Allen commented that,

the world is witnessing the rise of an entire new generation of Christian martyrs. The carnage is occurring on such a vast scale that it represents not only the most dramatic Christian story of our time, but arguably the premier human rights challenge of this era as well."

In slightly less apocalyptic vein, British author Rupert Shortt in his recent book Christianophobia: A faith under attack catalogues violent targeting of Christians from Nigeria to the far east as well as less lethal but clear human rights abuses and intimidation. In an interview with Alan Johnson, Shortt said that "in a vast belt of land from Morocco to Pakistan there is scarcely a single country in which Christians can worship entirely without harassment".

"Rather more rigorous data has been assembled by the Pew Research Forum in a report produced earlier this year. Pew found that official "restriction on religion" (a more objective term than "persecution") was at the highest level for six years, as was the "social harassment" of members of religious communities. And Christians, indeed, were the most affected group. Christians faced harassment in no fewer than 151 countries worldwide – and not just in the Middle East, China or North Korea."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:32 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:33 AM

Jim, your man goes on to claim that "It's almost certainly not the case that Christians are the most "persecuted" religious group in proportion to their numbers."

He is agreeing that it is the most persecuted, but only because it is the biggest.

Shite!!
There is no religious persecution in Europe or USA where most Christians are.
Christianity is very far from the biggest religion in the places where persecution happens, so proportionally they actually suffer very much MORE than other religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:58 AM

Delete USA and insert North and South America.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 01:16 AM

Oh, diddums-widdums, Steve. What a splenetic outburst. Quite uncharacteristic. What can have rattled the old cage to such an extent? Not like you at all. Why, somebody who can be so very rude and offensive with no provocation whatsoever deserves to be "patronised", you know [which you weren't, but let that pass].

Unless there is some physical cause, perhaps? Sounded to my experience like the effect of some sort of niggling painful disability which can have that sort of deleterious effect on the temper -- do you suffer from anything like gastric ulcers, say, or something of that nature? If not sure, I should get it checked if I were you. There must be something amiss for you to come over so exceptionally rude & aggressive without the slightest cause. Really quite unacceptable. But I shall overlook it. You are clearly not yourself for some reason.

There there...

Best regards, as ever

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 01:45 AM

And here is a bit of intentionally patronising, but obviously much-needed, advice for you, Mr Shaw. The use of such phraseology as "gobshite" and "arsehole" [with or without a factual addition like 'rightwing' which I see no objection to tho clearly intended as some sort of insult unworthy of an intellect generally of the quality of yours] is entirely counterproductive, and detracts from whatever merit the argument in which such appear might possess [nil, pretty well, in this instance, but as a general principle, you understand]: along with such idiotically hyperbolical threats as 'going for the jugular' [arrgghhh!; I would be quaking in my boots, if I wore boots!]. But you refrain because of my advanced age, do you: otherwise my jugular would be severed by your dentures, would it? Now who's being "patronising", you stupid young fool? Behave yourself.

In earnest, now: you would really do much better to forswear such locutions for the future, my good man.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 02:18 AM

"Fool", you observe. Much better word than "Twat". Take heed, & learn, my good fellow. I flatter myself that, here from the security of my own home [not "a Home", note], I can bite just as hard as you if need arises, tho fewer of my original teeth survive probably. I could match your pathetically abusive efforts in rational exchange any day of the week, & you better believe it, Sonny Jim!. So watch out for your own metaphorical 'jugular', you silly little chap.You are, after all, not such a bad old thing at that -- as I might have observed previously, but poor pathetic old survivals like me must be indulged to the extent of the occasional otiose repetition, or what a sad old world this would be for lively young things like S. Shaw Esq to come to eventual maturity in, to be sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Saint Musket
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 02:43 AM

{sniff} {sniff}

Here, can you smell bullshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 02:56 AM

And to indulge just for a moment in your sort of vocabulary, which as a rule I have avoided on this forum for the past 5 years as both discourteous & counterproductive, but the alliteration seems appropriate this time around --

I may be occasionally a bit breathless after walking, and a bit arthritic now & then

but really for 3-score-&- 22

I am not all that fucking 'frail'.

Now, then; remind us: what was anybody saying about Islamic radicalism...?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 03:18 AM

Steve, why can you not disagree with a polite and reasonable post in the same way?
Why must you be so abusive and offensive?
And how can you possibly know more about anti-Semitism than a Jew, especially a Jew who remembers Mosely's Blackshirts marching through his home city, lived through the holocaust losing family members, and made his way in institutions like the British Army?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 03:43 AM

"There is no religious persecution in Europe or USA where most Christians are."
Of course there is religious persecution in Europe and America
It has recently been announced that there has been an increase in the vandalising of Jewish cemeteries and attacks on Jews in Europe, I belive a number of people were gunned down in a Jewish museum recently. Incidents like this are set to accelerate now that that nice Mr Farrago's friends, Penn, Wilders, Soini, Kjaersgaard, Bossi... et al, have gained a toe-hold.
None in Britain - ask the Muslims who have turned up for worship to find some kind soul has poured petrol through the letter-box of their mosque, or the continued victims of 'Paki bashing', or Asian shopkeepers who have to put reinforcements over the fronts of their shops (one of them got kicked to death and was set on fire not to long ago).
Inter-religious persecution and disturbance is a fact of life in many countries - we're about to experience another bout of it up North from here in another few weeks.
Since 9/11, Muslims have become the most persecutes section of American society, all Muslims being blamed for the behaviour of a handful of fanatical nutcases.
Religious persecution, like the poor, has always been with us; it seems that it only becomes a problem to some people when Christians are on the receiving end.
Some of us regard all religious persecution as evil and the possibility of any church gaining political influence a permanent Damocles sword hanging over all of us - with people like yourself, it only becomes so when your own little boat is rocked.
You have the article - deal with the statements - "shite" does't hack it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 03:58 AM

With respect, Jim, and I hope without heated controversy: I honestly think you are confusing the concept of "persecution", which means the systematic maltreatment of a community by means legally recognised by the licit authorities where it occurs -- as is the case with some Christians in some places at present, though not of course exclusively so -- with illicit violence, not authoritatively approved, to which some minorities are subjected by dissident elements within the societies where they live. It is this latter abuse that you seem to be addressing in the examples given in your last post. They are most regrettable and deplorable abuses indeed; but they do not IMO constitute "persecution" in the sense I urge here, and which seems to me to be the meaning of that referred to in the post to which you are responding. True "persecution" is done by, or with the approval of, governments; not by insufficiently controlled mob-rule.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 04:11 AM

BTW -- meant to say thank you, Keith, for your last post. I should like to think that Steve posted his last one in heat, and perhaps regretted having done so after clicking on 'submit', as I am sure we have all done from time to time. I wonder... Seriously, I do generally regard him as a rational and reasonable forum member, and can't avoid thinking he departed from his normal standards for once this time. I should certainly prefer to think so.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 04:29 AM

Speaking as a contemptible little louse, I fail to see what personal history has to do with it.

None of us experienced any of what we write about. Michael is just amazingly reactionary and sees criminal association with one religion whilst ignoring the failings if others. Keith just likes people to think he is clever.

Both disappointing. Luckily, both disappointed.